Denpressure finally defined!

Yes! Yes! here it is defined by scepti:
Denpressure: The force of any dense object against atmospheric pressure that displaces it's own mass against that of the atmosphere it finds itself in.
He said a "FORCE".  Magnetism and electric are know fields. Of course the third force is GRAVITY but for now we will not use it. Common sense tell me if you remove the atmosphere pressure all you have left is the "FORCE". I ask for a name but did not get one. He called it "mo joe" if i wanted. He could not define me what is this "FORCE"
We all want to know.

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

Would 1/1000000 of the air removed qualify? In the end realty world testing gos a long way to confirm a theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

Would 1/1000000 of the air removed qualify? In the end realty world testing gos a long way to confirm a theory.

Still waiting for my answer scepti.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

Would 1/1000000 of the air removed qualify? In the end realty world testing gos a long way to confirm a theory.

Once you understand the actual power of the atmosphere you live under and the actual strength of your own body against it, only then will you understand what I'm talking about. As long as you hang onto gravity as you do this, you will never, ever accept, nor even allow yourself to contemplate the reality.

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

What do you mean by partially, what is the minimum pressure we can setup?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

What do you mean by partially. Would 1/1000000 of the air quality would be better than partial?

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 10:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

And we've spent pages trying to tell you that "partly evacuated" can come pretty darned close to "real vacuum".  In fact, it can come so close that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered to be the same thing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 10:50:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 10:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

And we've spent pages trying to tell you that "partly evacuated" can come pretty darned close to "real vacuum".  In fact, it can come so close that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered to be the same thing.

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 12:25:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 10:50:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 10:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

And we've spent pages trying to tell you that "partly evacuated" can come pretty darned close to "real vacuum".  In fact, it can come so close that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered to be the same thing.

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

So called ultra high vacuums are in the range of :   0.0000001 to 0.0000000001 Pa.
Extremely high vacuums are in the range of : less than 0.0000000001 Pa.
Outer space is in the range of : 0.0001 to less than 0.000000000000003 Pa. (Notice how it is not 0.)
Perfect vacuum : 0 Pa.
A perfect vacuum is not achievable.
Purely a theoretical standpoint.

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 12:25:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 10:50:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 10:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

And we've spent pages trying to tell you that "partly evacuated" can come pretty darned close to "real vacuum".  In fact, it can come so close that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered to be the same thing.

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

The best i have read is a one trillion of the air pressure on earth. Now back to the ball in the vacuum chamber to that amount would a few atoms cause the ball to fall down?

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 12:25:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 10:50:21 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2014, 10:36:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 08:00:14 AM

Quote from: Starman on March 18, 2014, 07:19:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 07:13:44 AM

Remove atmospheric pressure and you have nothing.

If you have nothing then the ball in the vacuum test would disappear.

Once you understand what a real vacuum is then maybe you will under stand a lot more. Partially evacuated pressure will not do a lot for you in that respect.

There is no such thing as a real vacuum.  Partially evacuated is the best that you can achieve.

Try telling that to these people, not me, because I've spent pages trying.

And we've spent pages trying to tell you that "partly evacuated" can come pretty darned close to "real vacuum".  In fact, it can come so close that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered to be the same thing.

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

I didn't say that it was.  I said that it might just as well be.  After all, how much of a difference can a few stray molecules of gas per cubic meter really make?

Does the amount of atmospheric pressure affect the rate of fall of an object? If not, why not?

Does the amount of atmospheric pressure affect the rate of fall of an object? If not, why not?

Yes, it can have a big effect but in various ways and is dependent on the actual object in ordinary atmospheric conditions.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on March 18, 2014, 07:52:27 PM

Does the amount of atmospheric pressure affect the rate of fall of an object? If not, why not?

Yes, it can have a big effect but in various ways and is dependent on the actual object in ordinary atmospheric conditions.

Please explain in detail.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 19, 2014, 02:50:46 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on March 18, 2014, 07:52:27 PM

Does the amount of atmospheric pressure affect the rate of fall of an object? If not, why not?

Yes, it can have a big effect but in various ways and is dependent on the actual object in ordinary atmospheric conditions.

Please explain in detail.

I don't need to, it's quite simple. It's atmospheric resistance upon whatever object is pushing against it which will determine the rate of speed towards the ground.

I'm afraid that Scepti's misunderstanding of a vacuum is far worse than just acknowledging the difference between a partially evacuated chamber and a completely evacuated chamber. He actually uses the term vacuum to describe the philosophical concept of "nothing".

You can remove all the matter from a chamber and it will still not be what scepti envisions.

I'm afraid that Scepti's misunderstanding of a vacuum is far worse than just acknowledging the difference between a partially evacuated chamber and a completely evacuated chamber. He actually uses the term vacuum to describe the philosophical concept of "nothing".

You can remove all the matter from a chamber and it will still not be what scepti envisions.

He is very predictable like a child.

I don't need to, it's quite simple. It's atmospheric resistance upon whatever object is pushing against it which will determine the rate of speed towards the ground.

So where does density come into it?

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

And with this simple one-liner, sceptimatic has proven once and for all that he has absolutely zero concept of any or all scientific principles and practices.

I hate to introduce some actual science into sceptimatic's "denpressure" topic.  It's a hard job, but someone has to do it.   

In the LHC (large hadron collider) in Switzerland, the CERN took nearly two weeks to reduce the pressures in the collider's beam arcs down to below 1.013 × 10^-10 mbar, or the equivalent of 10^-13 atmospheres.  In these arcs,  the ultra-high vacuum is maintained by cryogenic pumping of 9,000m³ of gas, plus maintaining a temperature of –271.3°C.

So... yeah... pretty darn close to a perfect vacuum.
 

I'm afraid that Scepti's misunderstanding of a vacuum is far worse than just acknowledging the difference between a partially evacuated chamber and a completely evacuated chamber. He actually uses the term vacuum to describe the philosophical concept of "nothing".

You can remove all the matter from a chamber and it will still not be what scepti envisions.

You remove all matter from a chamber and it ceases to be a chamber, but you can't understand stuff like that.

Quote

I don't need to, it's quite simple. It's atmospheric resistance upon whatever object is pushing against it which will determine the rate of speed towards the ground.

So where does density come into it?

All objects have density, it's just that some are more or less dense than others.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2014, 12:31:48 PM

Pretty darn close is not a perfect  vacuum no matter how you dress it up.

And with this simple one-liner, sceptimatic has proven once and for all that he has absolutely zero concept of any or all scientific principles and practices.

I hate to introduce some actual science into sceptimatic's "denpressure" topic.  It's a hard job, but someone has to do it.   

In the LHC (large hadron collider) in Switzerland, the CERN took nearly two weeks to reduce the pressures in the collider's beam arcs down to below 1.013 × 10^-10 mbar, or the equivalent of 10^-13 atmospheres.  In these arcs,  the ultra-high vacuum is maintained by cryogenic pumping of 9,000m³ of gas, plus maintaining a temperature of –271.3°C.

So... yeah... pretty darn close to a perfect vacuum.

There's no such thing as the LHC but you swallow it all up like a big plate of tasty Italian bolognese.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 19, 2014, 09:04:22 AM

Quote

I don't need to, it's quite simple. It's atmospheric resistance upon whatever object is pushing against it which will determine the rate of speed towards the ground.

So where does density come into it?

All objects have density, it's just that some are more or less dense than others.

It is called matter made up of atoms.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 20, 2014, 03:27:53 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 19, 2014, 09:04:22 AM

Quote

I don't need to, it's quite simple. It's atmospheric resistance upon whatever object is pushing against it which will determine the rate of speed towards the ground.

So where does density come into it?

All objects have density, it's just that some are more or less dense than others.

It is called matter made up of atoms.

Dress it up however you want to but it's still what it is.

All objects have density, it's just that some are more or less dense than others.

Man... this sort of outstanding scientific logic could win sceptimatic next year's Nobel Prize in Physics!